9/11 - terrorists or government?

As the plot was described, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, a 73-story building since renamed the US Bank Tower. In his remarks, Bush inadvertently referred to the site as "Liberty Tower." The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

While I'm no fan of the current administration, and have no doubt that its response to the disaster was driven more by political opportunism than by compassion, I don't think they themselves are responsible for the attacks. Certainly not in the way this video suggests. There would have been physical evidence, more concrete than the "evidence" presented here, most if not all of which has already been exlpained elsewhere.

More importantly, if the government had been behind the attacks, it would required a conspiracy big enough to make the JFK assassination plot look like a garden party. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people would have been involved, including law enforcement personel who are sworn to protect the public and uphold the law. I find it very difficult to believe that not one of them would have come forward by now.

Videos like this one only serve to blow smoke. The current administration appears to be guilty of some very real, very serious crimes; I would much rather we focused our attention on those, rather than on wild fantasies born of fear.

I remember seeing that video, and recommending it impartially in my blog a couple of months ago.I also remember thinking: in a country so prone to multi-million dollar sue cases as the US, I guess these guys -loosechange- must be right in some of the points, otherwise they wouldn`t risk so much saying this publicly...And if they are right even in some of the points, that opens a whole lot of new questions, and destroys completely the current´s administration credibility...(the typical, if you lied to me once, why wouldn`t you do it again?)Here in Europe we are much more skeptical, I think, so we are more inclined to believe what they may say in that video...regardshttp://niquel757.blogspot.com

Hey Marshall just to let you know that I have updated the post on robotics on my blog, so the recommendation for your blogs and books -within that article- is again among the top 4 posts right now ("Robotization and the future")I also pose you there a question. Why do you think certain things will happen in such a long span of time?read the post and tell me what you thinkregardshttp://niquel757.blogstpot.com

Considering the known lies about pre-war Iraqi intelligence and the fact that the we were deliberately led to war on a pre-tense of wildly unfounded fear, I am biased into believing many of the points in this video.

I was supposed to believe my government when Bush said Iraq was within a year capable of creating a nuclear bomb, or that they had unmanned drones that could drop biological weapons in the US in 45 hours. It was a sham. Now, looking back on 9/11, the collapse of wtc 7, and the many anomalies of the day look extremely kooky. The government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11; why would they hide? They waited more than a year to start an investigation and gave it less funding than Monicagate. The confiscated evidence of video from security cameras and private firms that probably caught the plane hitting the pentagon, yet have not released it. Things look funny.

1) Saddam did have biological and chemical weapons in the late 1980's and killed thousands of Kurds in northern iraq.

So Iraq did have WMD's at least in the late 80's and early 90's. Hmm... why would he just stop?

Do you think that a little declaration from the UN would make Saddam think "Oh well, I guess we have to shut down our nerve gas factories and through the stuff we've already made in the garbage."?

2) Remember when we had that UN commission search through Iraq to see if they had gotten rid of their WMD's (you know, the ones that the WHOLE world knew they had)?

Remember how Iraq always delayed the searches? Remember how when Bush wanted to just go in and see what they had all the democrats were up in arms saying "NO WAY! We must do this thing TOGETHER with other nations support. Just give the UN more time."

Remember how we spent 2 MONTHS waiting while the UN went around basically in ONE TRUCK to search ALL of Iraq?

3) There is a report from Saddam's own general that confirms the existence of WMD's in iraq and that they were flown to Syria. article

4) Note the irrational hate and intolerance the democratic party has towards President Bush. They hate him because he is a christian and they hate him because of his beliefs. They also seem to have hate for no reason. Hate often brings about delusional thinking, hence these conspiracy theories that the political left is always imagining.

Q: "Why would Saddam stop with WMDs when he had them in the late 1980's?"A: UN Sanctions starting in 1991. All human intelligence in Iraq from 1991 presently has suggested that there is no evidence Saddam had produced WMDs (see quotes from Iraq Survey Group and UN Inspections). When a 14,000 member team searched the country, they found banned weapons, but they were remnants of pre-sanction days. No new stockpiles.

The US reports were based on satelites and scetchy leads from Egyptian agents, not human intelligence.

I agree, Saddam wanted WMDs; he's pretty evil and would have continued if the the sanctions had not been imposed. But the most reliable evidence (the people making inspections on the ground) said there was no evidence; so we made up our own and used the media to rally support for the war.

Q: Respond to the fact that inspectors were not given cooperation.A: Inspectors were given unfettered access until 1998, when they were pulled out for US operations of Dessert Fox. When pulled out, they estimated that 90-95% of all weapons were destroyed. Since they pulled out in 1998 (because we spent a 3 day bombing campaign to degrade Saddam's ability to produce WMDs), they never went back in until the summer of 2002. Onces again, the reason they came out was so the US could bomb Iraq.

There could be weapons, but there was no evidence to point to it. I agree, Iraq possed a threat, but not an eminent one. You're attack on my post isn't valid; US officials scared the American public with lies of Iraqi WMDs.

Read the Downing Street memos. They fixed old intellegence data, shortened it in to concise and threatening statements (which, out of context were untrue), and used it to spread propaganda. We made up intelligence about Iraq being an eminent threat by taking it out of context and repeating it in the media over and over again.

It's as though we're spying on our neighbor who's had past experience of WMDs (more than a decade ago), and when he doesn't let us search his house to prove his innocence, we attack him. What's the rush? What's wrong with waiting for an international coalition. You don't make up fake intelligence and persuade people into war.

Q:There are claims that Iraq moved weapons to Syria before the invasion.A:So why attack Iraq? Go find the WMDs in Syria if we're sure they're there.

In any case, the reports are small scale... using comercial planes to ship WMDs in a short time frame when there was a natural disaster in Syria. There's litte corroberating evidence besides the Iraqi generals remarks, and investigations of the Iraq said there was no evidence of movement of weapons, though they were unable to rule is out as a possibility.

Could it have happened? Yes. Is it likely they had time to move massive amounts of weapons we don't even know they created. Highly doubtable.

Q:Democrats hate Bush, so their points are not credible.A:This is a logical fallacy. If someone runs in a room and shouts "FIRE, Evacute the building!" you don't evaluate the sanity of the person, you look at their claim of fire.

Don't make personal attacks on the people making claims, attack their claims.